I don't know how we can step off this merry-go-round of extraction, production, consumption, waste, and more extraction. It isn't that I can't imagine a rational, ecologically compatible way of life, I just don't know how we can make the transition from where we are now to a more sensible way of life. — Bitter Crank

I do not think that a transition will come without any violent revolution. Nor do I support such a violent event. I think we will hang on to this capitalist system untill it runs completely out of support and that may well take a very long time. I do not think that the average common man can be persuaded to this utopian thinking.

Yet there must be something intermediary to account for the difference between Y and Z. This intermediary is time itself. Therefore it is not only possible that time passes without physical change, but it is a necessary conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

This might be true. But it might also be possible that the intermediary to account for the difference in time is the change from Y to Z so is this a valid argument?

It is true that my reaction may be extreme and that companies are helping us develop a better world. The thing is that it could go much, much faster. say for instance we make use of the heat Yellow Stone produces. This alone could be enough to provide big parts of USA if not all of it with renewable energy.

Secondly, this system encourages personal profit, not common profit and that is why it is not going as fast as is possible. It is not someones fault in particular, but it is just the way big cooperations work due to the system they are in.

The value of private property (factories, railroads, airlines, warehouses, stores, cropland, etc.) lies in its capacity to produce commodities. Commodities (clothes, chairs, beds, food, cars, books, TVs, etc) are personal property. Money, as an exchange mechanism, doesn't drive the system. It can't, really. The average person works to produce enough value (to the society) to obtain the commodities he needs. — Bitter Crank

You are right in saying the first part. There is a difference between private and personal property. I am proposing that personal and private property will not exist in the sense it does today. Today, the factory is called private property, while the machines in it are called personal property. What is the personal use of machines? What more use has it than factories do? As far as I'm concerned in this new system we are delveloping in our minds here, everything like this (factories, land, machines, TV's, books and even food) will be called "state/common property" or "worldly property". Now, personal property will be products truly created by oneself. Say for instance art, be it music or scientific ideas. These things can be attributed to one person or a group of persons it came from. Therefore, this person deserves the praise of the product and we call it his private property. He can do with it whatever he wishes possible within the laws. He can make it common property and give it to science or to a museum or he can keep it in his own home. Common property, however, needs to be distributed equally, since it is nobody's own property.

In saying the second thing you are, as far as my opinion goes, not right. Money does drive today's system. You are saying it in the sentence that follows your statement. The average person works to produce the value to obtain the commodities he needs. However, does the average person understand what he needs and what he wants. My proposition is as follows (in the perfect state of affairs). A human can have anything he wants, as long as everyone else on the world has acces to it. In a world of abundance this wouldn't be much less then we all want today, since computers and that kind of stuff are fairly easy to make in mass amounts.

We don't actually have enough of everything to go around. It is not possible for all 7.3 billion people to live like first world people do. — Bitter Crank

Your argument concerning the concrete is very nice. I cannot find a direct counterargument to prove it wrong. However, it is not out of the realms of possibility to make something different than concrete. It is invented by the romans and yes they used special sand. But 50 years ago we weren't able to make electric cars and yet today people say that within 30 years petrol cars will be a thing of the past in the Western world. The only thing holding back the Western world is money and the system that uses it. I will give you an example (you will have to believe me on this one): pattents for solar panels are currently in part being held by the companies that produce energy using fossil fuels. These companies are doing everything they can to delay the implementation of solar panels since it would put them out of business. And so things are the same for electric cars and I would not be surprised if it were true for a very big lot of all the technology threatening to put big businesses out of work. The amount of renewable energy we will be able to produce using wind, solar, tidal and geothermal power is immense and beyond imagination.

In short, money (and possibly even property) is counterproductive. It used to be very efficient and very handy in handling everyday business. But in todays world, it is not usefull anymore. It holds us back.

Indeed, after not feeling my emotions for so long i am relieved to finally feel something and at times am glad I feel melancholic — intrapersona

I think for this the best reference is Aristotle and his ethics. Happiness means that all faculties of the human soul function perfectly. The more the function appoaches perfection, the more happiness there is. This perfect functioning is achieved through virtues and each virtue has it's extremes. For instance bravery is a virtue and its extremes are acting reckless and acting cowardly. The key is to not be reckless or cowardly, but somewhere in the middle. Now, feeling melancholic is not part of a virtue or something like that, but I do think that there exists some system in which feeling a certain kind of way plays a part in happiness. So it is not good to feel very happy all the time, as it is equally bad to feel sad all the time. We have to balance everything out so melancholy is part of life and being happy.

We still will not have eliminated a system where every individual acts according to what he/she rationally calculates maximizes his/her utility and the invisible hand magically makes all of that self-interest result in maximum collective good. We will not have eliminated the greed, exploitation, etc. that such a system encourages. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Money is just a medium of exchange. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Replacing workers with robots will not, in itself, usher in the kind of revolution you are proposing. The whole relationship of property and persons would have to be abolished. — Bitter Crank

So private property would have to be abolished. Furthermore, money as a medium of exchange would have to be abolished.

First about the money. It is true that money is a medium of exchange. I'm arguing that in today's world, a medium of exchange has become obsolete. With the technology of today, we are 100% able to support a world in which no one would need money. Money is used to exchange goods and services and 1000 years ago this was a logical way because goods and services were scarce. In my view, money is used to express ones ability to buy these commodities and to express the ammount of commodities another person owes one (society owes more to a brain surgeon than to a factory worker). In today's world, goods and services are not scarce. They are simply kept scarce through planned obsolescence (look at all the electronics in African countries that are simply dumped there) (this may also be a bit over simplified). We are able to make a world of abundance in which scarecity is out of the question.

Then, if we would have enough for everyone, private property is not needed since private property is money expressed through the ownership of commodities. It is true I need a house and I need enough food and a car and a bed and so on. However, I do not need a video camera all the time and I do not ned a bunch of other stuff all the time. These things could be common property, held by some sort of government (but describing the structure of this government is a step too far) and since there is abundance, there is no problem with that. Everyone could use these things when they need to.

Now about the machines. I understand that complicated jobs like surgery and such are difficult to hand out to machines. However, this is already being done in experimental settings. This is, nonetheless, not the point I want to make. Saving all the manpower from letting machines do the simple stuff (building cars, buildings, electronics etc.) will hugely increase the available manpower for education and we could educate more people to manage the more difficult jobs. We would be able to take humanity as a whole to another level.

Eradicating money as a mode of expression of wealth would require new incentives for people to act and to work. And I believe that these incentives lie in helping the common good. Right now, brain surgeons operate because they want to help people and because they have to make money. When money is gone from the equation, everyone would do things because they truly want to, making for a more pure civilization! Not even to mention that more educated people would lead to less work hours per person on average.

I am playing the devils advocate here. I would love to here your counter arguments and problems that arise from this proposition.